vote:

the presiding officer: could we have order in the senate, please.

the vice president: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the roll call vote on this is 47 yeas, 52 nays. the motion fails. mr. reid: mr. president? i enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on this nomination. the vice president: the motion is entered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of pedro l. delgado hernandez of puerto rico to be united states district judge of puerto rico, signed by 17 senators. the vice president: the question is is there a sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of pedro delgado hernandez of puerto rico to be united states district court

judge of the district of puerto rico to be an assistant attorney general shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their votes? if not, the ayes are 57, the nays are 41, with one senator voting "present."

the motion to invoke cloture is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, pedro a. delgado hernandez of puerto rico, to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate

>> in ukraine, where political tensions continue to center, a

meeting taking place in paris today with secretary of state kerry and russian counterpart, sergey lavrov to attend. the media at the conclusion will bring you those remarks live when they start. >> this is one of our favorite times of the year at c-span. the time i get to the winners of our annual student documentary contest called studentcam. the 2014th team for students interested in entering the most important issue that congress should consider in 2014. this year we received the record number of 200 -- 2,350,000 entries came from 46 states from the district of columbia, from taiwan and from the united arab emirates. as students around the country and internationally. altogether, 4860 middle and high school students participated

this year, either individually or on teams. one other thing special about this years contest as we doubled the number of prizes and the amounts of prize money. it went from $50,000 contest to us giving away $100,000 in prizes. that meant 150 poor student documentarians and also the 97 students to receive honorable ventures. the grand prize here is $5000 ashtray. there is three for high school entries. they are divided and each one of those top pointers will receive $3000. won first place at the middle-school level receiving $3000. one of the reasons we do this is to hear what is on the minds of young people. the topics students choose are a good way to measure what they are thinking about. here is a list of the top categories, top issues we received from students: back at

what i've got legislation. third on the minds of students this year with education and education issues. the next in line were documentaries about the environment. and next after that, immigration. so we are going to tell you about the grand prize winners this year. it was a team. their topic was called earth first, phrack executive. it was a three-person team from long beach polytechnic high school in california. they were served by communication a three team members in that group, emma larson, michaela caps and sir haida check will be talking with one of the three members of the team right now. hi, emma. >> guest: hello. >> host: what was your response when you won grand prize? >> guest: we were shocked. we let that one another and we could not believe it.

posta when you finish, to journey sense of how good it was? >> guest: we did not. >> guest: tommy how you got interested in the first place. tesco well, our ninth grade project is required for students to complete. >> host: how did your team come together? did the teacher assign them? >> guest: yes, we could pick our team members. we chose other people we have known for a few years. we were comfortable and that we worked well together. >> host: when you join forces with michaela and sir, had any be done documentaries before? >> guest: no. >> host: how did you learn how to do them? >> guest: we watched videos at c-span provided on how to make documentaries and editing and things like that. >> host: how does you choose the topic? >> guest: we chose the topic by completing current events. i read an article on "the new york times" about franking and

was immediately interested. a couple weeks later, we saw in our local newspaper the telecom about fracking and it is happening two miles away from us. we stopped and went to research, it can become the topic. >> host: long beach has long had an oil industry because it is a big port and a lot of oil drilling. so you were surprised to find out fracking is happening there? >> guest: yeah, it is unregulated, so there is no techniques, no water testing. that's really dangerous. >> host: is that the primary thing you learned when he researched transfix? what ultimately is the message you would like to hear about fracking? >> guest: we want congress to know that our country has a problem and that problem is the

regulation of hydraulic fracking. keep in mind that fracking has huge economic potential, but it has to be regulated. it has to be saved. >> host: one of the things support about the studentcam program is there's two sides. even people listening today a sense of why the economic aspects of this are important so that you feel we have to get the regulation rate. >> host: file, according to a research published, there is fracking will create 2.5 million jobs by 2020. that is a huge number that can do great things for our country. we are in the middle of economic at times. i think fracking and the oil industry can pull us out of that. >> host: who was the most interesting person you interviewed? >> guest: kerry greenwood, a farmer in pennsylvania. his story about how fracking has affected his life and the people he knows. it was fascinating to talk to

him. >> host: how did you find them in pennsylvania when you live in california? >> guest: we research people in his name kept coming up. he had been so many interviews and youtube videos that he is an expert on the subject. >> host: what do you plan to do next with the videography part of better from the transfix? >> guest: hopefully we can talk to the local city officials and our city and have been regulate the transfix happening two miles away from our house. >> host: what are you planning to do with the $5000 how does your school when? >> guest: with the $5000, we are putting it to attribute the three of us will go on was to graduate from high school. our school is recognizing eyes. they get the money to spend on video cameras. everyone is excited and we can tell people are part of us. >> host: congratulations to you, michaela and sir for your grand prize when of studentcam

2014. we are proud of all the students that got great entries this year. it is terrific your team was chosen as number one. congratulations. >> guest: thank you very much. >> a little bit more about the other winners that were chosen. before we do that, sense of what the grand prize was like. let's watch the clip. >> here congress. here congress. hydraulic fracking is important to the growth of our economy. but if you want the political support of the american people, some things need to change. we need to investigate the impact of hydraulic fracking and the use of recycled water instead of fresh water. we need to mandate testing of water near fracking sites and the transportation of oil and gas. most importantly, the

halliburton loophole and you need to require public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing. >> they don't care. -- [inaudible] they should take the exceptions off the table. >> just a short clips of the studentcam winning documentary this year. earth first, fracking second. 18 the ninth graders from long beach, california. as i mentioned, many winners across the united states. this year we did three regional winners at the high school level. i will tell you more about who won the top five for high school. beginning with the top five in

high school is diagnosing the problem and the winners are shelley ortiz, nine indian deed and hannah good. twelfth grade art institute in phoenix, arizona where they are served by communications. that is a topic on mental health diagnoses and treatment as their message to congress. the first prize winner, we the people genetically modified. andrew thomas or is the winner there. tenth grade and notre dame cathedral high school and shard, ohio. time warner cable as their supplier. nexus first prize in high school at east. that is a team of 10th graders from montgomery blair high school in the washington d.c. area, silver spring, maryland. they are served by contact. their concept was water pollution. the first prize and there's only one of these at the middle-school level is on the nsa. that was done by a team of eighth-graders from eastern

middle-school in silver spring, maryland, also the washington d.c. suburb. there is of course was on the big debate in this country over government surveillance. we congratulate all the studentcam. all the students working hard in all the winners and those who claim the prize is available for you to see on our studentcam website. www..studentcam..or >> once again, waiting for remarks from ukraine on secretary of state, john kerry and his russian counterpart, sergey lavrov. both are in paris with talks to resolve the standoff in ukraine. until then, some comments from the senate floor in the russian intervention in that country. this is from yesterday will show you as much as we can until secretary kerry gets underway. >> i wanted to come to the floor today and talk about the ongoing

crisis in ukraine. i am glad senator mccain on the floor today because it is hard to describe the sensation that ot and i felt at the end of last year when we got the chance to travel to the mad dog square in kiev and talk to people. it is hard to describe a group of people yelling back to you in unison. thank you, u.s.a. thank you, u.s.a. but that was the reality we were able to experience. it is im know that senator mccain and i did not go to advocate for president yanukovich's removal, even though the process resulted in that fact. in actuait fact. in actuality, we spent two hours that night meeting with yanukovich, pleading with him to abandon plans to join the e.u. so he could when asked to

support of the hundreds of thousands of people who gathered on that square to support european integration and domestic political reforms. the president yanukovich didn't listen and instead lost his legitimacy when he turned his security serves on his own people, resulting in the murder of over 100 ukrainians who simply wanted to compel their leader to follow the wishes of the ukrainian people. i was proud to offer a resolution that passed unanimously that declared her support for the ability of ukrainians to air grievances and to oppose the use of force against them. and i was equally proud to join senator mccain and some others in a bipartisan call for sanctions against yanukovich when he began his murderous crusade against the protesters. i was even prouder of president obama, who threw the state department sent a clear, unwavering message to the ukrainian people that the united states stood with them in their

desire to see a better future for ukraine, aligned with europe and the west. a strong, bipartisan approach here in america to the maidan movement helped the people of ukraine is a chartered their own path towards a new government. we dictate the terms of ukraine's future. we simply supported the right of the people to determine for themselves. but now, despite the maidan, the crisis in ukraine has changed his face. it hasn't dissipated. today secretary kerry was greeted in kiev for the continued support of the united states. having been so clear voice and are supported ukrainian people thus far since the protests began last november but now is the moment of democrats and republicans should stand united in this congress so that years from now when a group assembles in kiev, marking the anniversary, they will celebrate ukraine's political sovereignty and economic rebirth with more chance that thanks to the united

states. so, in what shape should this support? first, we need to stand together in the next week to deliver serious financial assistance to ukrainian economy that is weak and growing weaker as this crisis persists. a $1 billion aid package is a good start, but our real work must happen within the structures of the imf, which can provide potentially tens of billions of dollars necessary to make ukrainian economic shift. while ukraine does need to undergo economic and budget reforms from within, i would caution the imf to be gentle and the timing of the conditions applied. difficult steps need to be undertaken to raise as gas prices and trim budget deficits, but ukraine should be given a long enough pleased so these reforms don't strangle a nation. today dealing with threats to its very existence. second, crimea. russia has invaded ukraine. make the mistake. they have done so in violation

of the united nations charter and the very accord that they signed in 1994 guaranteeing crimea's territorial security. no doubt vladimir putin will soar him as his ally in ukraine president's office in no doubt he didn't like the fact united states voiced his strong support for the right of a sovereign ukraine to make independent decisions about its future partnerships. and no doubt, he is infuriated that the ukrainian people are now on their way to getting their way. this is not a schoolyard. you don't get to push around weaker or just because you don't like them. this is a 21st century. the reason we belong to organizations like the united nations, the reason we negotiate treaties like the budapest memorandum is because we now understand after centuries of european war destabilizing this kind of behavior is. the irony for russia of course is this invasion demonstrably weakened, not strengthen the

nation's position in the world. let's say for arguments sake the end result of this crisis is a crimea were closely aligned with russia and ukraine. what does that accomplish for russia? it will have on the occupation of 2 million ukrainians while the majority of the other 43 million continued to orient themselves permanently towards the european union. if the united states and europe make good on sanctions threats, which i hope we will, it will devastate the russian economy, leaving millions of russians out of work and adding political instability to putin's homeland of the time he can afford much more instability and will make russia an international pariah, shot by industrialized nations that helped form the future path of global and economic values. given this reality, why did you do it? he didn't do is to protect russians in ukraine. the only threat is due to a military are making. he did it because like the schoolyard bully, he didn't see past his own nose.

he believes that he wins by temporarily flexing his muscles and capturing the world's attention. he doesn't look to the long-term potentially dire consequences to his own political standing and his own people. he throws punches because it feels good today no matter how bad it will hurt tomorrow. that being said, no matter the irrationality of moscow's behavior, we to make sure that his russia does not correct the mistakes and that the consequences to her. i believe congress should out there is broad authority for president obama to enact strong sanctions and russia through penalties to banks, oil companies and political and economic elite. i believe the president should only be allowed to use this authority in the case this illegal incursion into ukraine continues and we should give moscow the opportunity to reverse course or join the international community to address their concerns about the russian into ukraine. let's give russia the chance to

make this better and deliver a clear message of consequence if they don't. this of course can't happen without the support of our european allies. as chairman of the foreign relations subcommittee all be on the phone this week with european parliamentarians, urging them to join us in proposing new sanctions on the russian economy. i know the hesitance in europe due to the integration of russia and european economies, but the crisis should matter more to europe than it matters to us. five years ago as a laughable proposition that russia would invade ukraine, but it is happening now. it may be unthinkable that russian fighters is going to move on a nato ally. if this aggression goes unchecked in the future can be perilous, even for our friends in europe. finally, a word on the crisis. i listen to some of my friends on the republican side try to score political points in connection with the russian move on crimea, tried to paint this somehow is obama's fault. this is a ridiculous contention.

putin launched in 2008 under republican president, who many consider to be strong on foreign policy and is now doing it with the democrats in office. president obama today is considering steps in response to a seemingly weren't considered in 2008. what makes them even more suspect of the criticism of president obama is that there says it seemed to be any real difference between what republicans want the president to do and what he is actually doing. .. today there is pretty solid bipartisan agreement on what to do next. ukraine can remain whole and free, madam president, and it can stay on a path to join europe, and when that day emerges from the smoke and the fire of the crisis, if we play our cards right, then they will have america and our european allies to thank in part for that new day. i yield the floor.

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i thank my colleague from connecticut for his thoughtful remarks on the events taking place, the tragedies taking place in ukraine as we speak today. i appreciate his commitment to trying to find a way through this very difficult situation. the senator is dead wrong when he says this is like georgia. in fact, this senator wanted to do a lot more than we did. in fact, we did a lot more. the fundamental problem here i say to my friend from connecticut is that this president doe sglp at this >> this president doesn't understand putinrr that he is on old kbj colonel build on

restoring the russian empire.n n the 20th century was the downfall of the soviet union. this president is the one that ridiculed mitt romney when he said the greatest enemy is russia and when he said the cold war has been over for 20 years. vladimer putin doesn't believe the cold war is over. and when the president is overheard saying to mr. putin's puppet, tell vladimer putin after i am reelected i will be more flexible. you get that?

tell vladimer putin i will be more flexible. this president believed somehow that vladimer putin had anything but the ambition which he is now realizing in the ukraine. i think it might be interesting for my colleagues to note that vladimer putin spoke to the press today. and vladimer putin, among other things, answering the questions said my assessment of what happens in kiev and ukraine, this was a takeover of armed seizure of power. that was vladimer putin's view of what happened. as the president there killed 82

people and wounding others. and he said i would like to stress, the president of ukraine handed over power and obviously he didn't hand over power. he was driven by the people who were tired of his corruption. anybody who believes anything good about him, should see the pictures of the home he had and the dasha he was building that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. truly a man of the people. the parliament as president putin went on to say, the current acting president of ukraine is definitely not legit. there is one legit president

from the legal standpoint. and then comes more interesting things. vladimer putin now says now about financial aid to christian science monitor -- crimea -- we will provide the support and i cannot say how much. they are bring together the regions that are bordering the area and we will do it. regarding the deployment of troops, so far no need, but the possibility remains. i repeat: the u.s. of armed forces, so fars, there is no need for it, he said, but the possibility remains.

this is a return to the old russian soviet double-speak which was non-sense but they said it anyway. he goes on to see what is the biggest concern. he says we see nationalist and anti-semetic forces going on in parts of ukraine. why swhen we see this, we understand what worries the people of ukraine and it is this uncontrolled crime that is worrying them. therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern rej regions of the country, and we should pay close attention, if the people ask for

help, we have the official request from the legit president, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. we believe this would be absolutely legit. then he goes on to say, and answers the question, that is the tension in crimea that is linked to the possibility of using armed forces died down. i repeat, the tension in crimea was linked to the possibility of using arm forces died down and we had no reason to use them. we had to enhance the defense of the military facilities because they are constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalist moving in. russia was well-trained, well-equipped 16,000 or more

troops. and vladimer putin was worried about enhancing the defense of the military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats. there is something i would like to stress he says, it isn't within my authority and we don't intend to interfere, but we believe all citizens of ukraine should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country and determining their future. we are seeing justification for intervention and serious intervention in eastern ukraine. he takes a shot at the united states saying our partners in the united states formulate their own political interest and using the principle you are with us or against us, they draw the whole world in, and those that

cannot join in get beaten until they do. he says our approach is different. we always act legitimately. i am not making this up. this is what vladimer putin said: i have been an advocate of acting in compliance with international law. if i do decide to use the armed forces, this is a legitimate decision with both general norms of international law since we have the appeal of the legitimate president and the interests which are to protect the people who we have cultural and economic ties. protecting these people is in

our national interest. this is a humaniitarian issues. we cannot remain indifferent if people are being destroyed. a question here for the president. the people who were blocking the ukraine army in crimea were wearing russian uniforms. were they not russian? vladimer putin said go look at the surrounding states, there are uniforms that are similar question, but were they russian forces? vladimer putin; those were local

self defense units. question, how well trained are we if we compare team the the self-defense in kiev. vladimer putin said they were trained at special basis in neighboring states like poland, crane and lithuania. and trains by instructors for extended periods and divided into dozens and hundreds, coordinated actions and it is like clock work. who do you think those in crimea should be worse? did we take part in training crimea's self-defense forces? vladimer putin, no, we didn't. this is the same guy that the

president of the united states pushed to reset button time and again with. this is the same tie that we can work with vladimer putin and my colleague fr colleague and former member of this body on friday. on friday, as putin's forces moved in to the crimea, it was very clear to anyone that the russians were moving in, the secretary of state on friday, spoke with russian sergey lavrov and this is a quote from secretary kerry. he raised the issue of airports, armored vehicles and personal in various places and why we were told they are not engaging in

a any violation of the sovereignty, i made it clear that could be isinterrupted at this point and people need to be sure they don't descend the wrong messages. i am not making that up. after five years of believing that somehow vladimer putin was anything but what he is, we are now paying the piper. the chickens are coming home to roost. and do we have a military option? no. but we have a number of other option. i want to read one other article that was in the "usa today" by jonah goldberg, obama in denial

on russia. i'll not go through it. he wrote an article in college placing the blame on the "war mentality and the twisted logic of the cold war and president reagan's defense build up according to obama deflected the prioritiesing rather than what should be the goal: a nuclear-free world. that is from student obama. but the remarkable thing that two weeks ago in response to tensions in ukraine, two weeks z ago, the president explained that quote our approach isn't to see the ukraine events as a chess board in which we are in competition with russia. this is a horrible way to talk about the cold war because it

implies it is a game started between two competitors. similar comparisons are common as of late especially during the olympics. america surely made mistakes during the trouble. but there was a right and wrong side to that conflict. we were on the right side, the soviet union, which vladimer putin was a part, murdered millions of its own people and stifled people in all forms, enslaved all nations and tried to undermine defense in the united states. >> the senator's time has explained

>> may i ask for five more minutes? >> without objection. >> the president says the collapse was the greatest go-political instance in the 20th century. that should have been a clue a that misspelled reset buttons were not going to cut it. they were too stuck in the past to see it. i could go on and on including the ridicule that some of us were subjected to when we pointed this out from time to time. including 2008 when i said in a debate with then candidate obama watch ukraine, watch ukraine, putin will not give up ukraine. we need to have an economic aid package immediately. i am glad our secretary of state is over there with initial u.s.-loan guarantees joining the eu and a longer package through

the international monetary fund. we have to stabilize the economy of ukraine which is on near collapse. financial sanctions, trade embargos and people will not have tribavel or get a visa. they need to pay a penalty for orchestrating what is is going on. we should not go to the g-8 summit. we should be thrown out of the g-8. it should be the g-7. we need a path and a quick one for georgia and mulldova.

both are occupied by russian troops and the russian keep moving the fence further and further into this sovereign territory of these countries. in an attempt to appease mr. putin, he abandoned missile stations in the czech and poland. we need to reinstate these. i am not counting on the european friends. there have been statements by murkle and leaking of a memor d memorandum from their government. we have seen a recession in

european leadership over the last 10-20 years. we need to act. we need to speak up in favor of the people who are now being overtaken in crimea by vladimer putin's army and military. i worry, and in conclusion, i say, it is time we woke up about vladimer putin. it is time this administration got real. it is also time for us to worry about what vladimer putin will do in there with eastern ukraine on the pretext that disorder and demonstrations might require russian pres -- presence -- if we allow mr. putin to assert his authority here, that message isn't lost on poland, and many

other countries. we are on the verge of possibly seeing a move to reassert the old russian empire which is mr. putin's lifelong ambition. i thank my colleague from alabama and i yield the field. >> madam, president? >> the senator from alabama. >> i appreciate the opportunity to listen to senator mccain. i think the facts have proven him right for many years of warning this country about how we have to conduct international license in a realistic way. i had the opportunity to be in georgia and the ukraine about three years ago. in georgia, we went south where the russians moved in there

against the european international law. and had set in and just last week or so we were informed by the prime minister from georgia that they were building barbwire fences and digging in deeper along the boarder than before. and in ukraine, we met with the democrats that were trying to hang on to democracy there. the lady who led the orange revolution was worried about going to jail. they put her in jail and kept her for years. and the eu and nato officials say they were bogus charges. and the democratic activist were depressed that putin with his

intel background was using the russian intelligence services in ukraine to buy up media, buy up television to propagandize the country. they were hurting and didn't know good they can successfully resi resist. it was a delight to see this revolution again. non-violent basically when the people stood up their country and mr. putin isn't accepting sovereignty and is trying to utilize military force in a way that is stunning. the crimea is larger and significant than the south areas of georgia. but it is just the same actions. senator, mccain, thank you for

your leadership >> we are awaiting remarks from secretary of state john kerry and the rush russian foreign minister sergey lavrov who are meeting in paris today. the senate is in a break for lunches. they voted on nomination including a code on the head of the civil rights division. he released a statement saying washington was used the roles against him. those who voted against the nomination denied the american people an outstanding public serva servant. the senate returns at 2:15 eastern. we will have live coverage. we will have a discussion on the

2015 budget plan from this mornings "washington >> guest: this rallies the base and expands college access and education for young, poor kids and expanding tax cuts for those in poverty and similar measures the democrats ran on and appreciate. it is a policy document used as a tool for 2015-2016 the final years of the obama presidency.

we wants to get something done before leaving. he is figure out a policy plan for the final two years. >> host: is it realistic this plan can get through congress? >> guest: no, i don't think anyone expects the entire budget will pass. i don't think that is that has ever happened. but some things might have opportunity for bipartisan compromise. the business tax code reform would generate revenue to build bridges and roads and generate jobs and that is similar to a proposal that dave camp, the chairman of the house released last week. so ideas in the budget could be ground for compromise.

>> host: does he indicate where he is going to act alone? >> guest: there is not so much of that. the president has a robust executive action plan he is implementing and he is taking action and has many more this year. the whitehouse is proud of announcing that. this is focused on what he would like congress to do. >> host: and what has been the reaction from congress? >> republicans slammed it, democrats praised it. but some interesting things. democrats admit it is a roadmap for the mid-term election as the republicans say for the paul ryan budget going to be released. there is the business tax reform. and the expansion of a tax

credit called the earned income tax credit that benefits low income people. they are trying to propose it to make it more generous for childless workers. he is proposing expanding it. and the republicans have supported expansions to it as well. >> host: what is the vehicle to get them folded into the legislation? >> guest: i don't think anyone would say anything is getting done this year. last session, spending limits and caps for 2014 and 2015 were agreed to and those are in law now. it is hard to see them changing. if the election is beneficial to

the democrats, there is the potential for replacing spending cuts that will take affect next year or preplacing the current limited spending caps with a generous one by limiting specific tax loopholes that the republicans don't like or finding alternative spending cuts in medicare or other programs that republicans might support. >> host: what does the president' budget say about the two-year budget deal that ryan and murray were able to strike for 2015 and what is the response from congress? >> guest: the whitehouse has a confused stance on these policies. they say they respect people but

want to go above them. they proposed a $56 million package for 2015 and it would fund defense, pre-k, job trading and the like, manufacture and energy and bread and butter issues. that is their idea. no one thinks it is going to happen before the elections. it is possible there could be agreement after the election. but you know, against all odds, ryan and murray did find a compromise before. so it isn't guaranteed not to happen. >> host: the president's budget is one thing, murray and the

ryan deal is another and you have the of the approperators >> guest: right they are hard at work and people are not paying much attention to that. going forward, that work is going to continue. the president and whitehouse will try to strike the balance because congress has the ability to shift or shape what the lower level accounts look like. but this is a battle on what happens after the year. >> host: and then what? >> guest: if the republicans win in the senate and increase in the house, it is hard to see obama achieving much in the final two years. maybe republicans will do a deal on corporate taxes, but it is hard to imagine. if democrats keep their senate majority and enhance the house position, and few expect them to win the house, or no body.

and then you can see jobs, infrastructu infrastructu infrastructure initiatives and closing loopholes. >> host: the president's budget is a proposal based on his vision and congress' job is to balance the outlays. >> guest: that is true. but the president lays out leadpership. one has to understand the president's vision and the republican's vision are opposed. ryan is critiqueing the safety programs that support the poor and obama wants to expands on

them. these visions are not able reck reckonsiable right now. >> host: on poor americans in the income inequality gap, what do the republicans want to do? >> guest: they are unsure on what they wouldn't to do to address the problem. they are focused on the fact that poverty and inequality, they focus less on income inequality and economic opportunity. republicans have been focus ed n the deficit and now there is a shift to focus on the middle class and the poverty levels. so how they fix that is a debate in the republican parties.

so in general, their measures encourage people to work longer hours in exchange for help but there is no agreement on how they should address the issues, but more they should focus on the issue. >> host: we are talking about the president's budget yesterday. the cabinet members will be defending the director. sylvia is in front of the house and we will have that at 2:30. and jack lieu is on capital hill this morning before the senate finance committee and that is at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. steve, you are up first in

handover, maryland. republican caller. hi, steve. >> caller: i see the '80s is calling back the foreign policy, but i think this is a nice segue into the reagan federalism. i heard you say we are spending $600 billion for infrastructure in the 3.7 trillion deal. i am all for macroeconomics and understand it is said we are not spending enough. spending isn't the issue when programs are managed properly. if you drive down route 95 and 198-195 has jersey walls for

years. this is part of the recovery and investment act of 2009. but this is giving infrastructure spending a bad name. funds are poorly managed and no movement on a project says it for itself. it is the mismanagement of the funds that bother people. and in the private sector, you don't mismanage fund and you don't have unlimited funds and unlimited tax dollars. this is what the government is giving us. we can tax and then the money is wasted. >> host: so you degree overall with the idea of putting money into infrastructure you will grow the economy? >> caller: spending goes out to the economy. that is common sense. but the problem is manage.

this is where reagan federalism comes in. if you give the money to the state and let them manage, it is a better way to go. you are the experts. i am an old army guy. >> for how long? >> 20 and a half of active and 1.5 of reseverves. >> guest: exactly how many projects are mismanaged is hard to see. it is a federal government. it is a lot of money and you will see some infrastructure program going wrong. i don't think many people disagree with the fact the united states has a profound infrastructure deficit. and you visit airports and

bridges that are falling down so many economist thinks the government needs to spend more on infrastructure because countries are loaning us money at low rates and it will benefit us. >> host: is this is the one proposal of job creation in the budget? >> guest: there are others, but he wants hundreds of millions on infrastructure in all sorts. and that is nowhere near as much infrastructure demands as there is need for repairs. that is good for the unemployed population because it is easy to go back to work by doing construction and infrastructure. >> host: linda is up next in arizona. >> caller: this is my opinion.

i take care of my mother on social security. we are supposed to take care of families. what happened to taking compare of families? >> what cuts? >> keep the cuts in the united states and keep it here instead of sending it overseas. >> guest: i do think people are feeling hurt and without money. so this is a big problem. there is discussions of cutting medicare and social security in the budget negotiations that happen on capital hill. foreign aid represents a small part of the budget. that is a major focus of where

budget talks are going. >> host: brandy is up next. >> caller: i want to say the private sector does fail, first. and reagan brought a lot of debt to this nation. and as far as the republicans not having a plan on poverty, that is no surprise because they have never cared about poverty from what i have seen. and as far as the first speaker talking about the military budget line items staying the same with no increase, the republicans or conservatives should jump all over that. we are not increasing that. that is more spending and we cannot accommodate or assist the poor. we are a struggling nation still. and you can tell i am a

democrat. i am just a democrat. i have been independent for years and i never voted a straight party line ticket never. i told myself i would never do it. but this last election, i said i cannot tell myself and conscious i am independent for voting for people i don't support. and i want to make one more comment that i am very frustrated about the fact of where would this country be if the republicans wanted to help our president and help the country? it is like a divorced parent that puts the hatred of the child before the love of the child. when nancy pelosi was the speaker, she put legislation out there that could get by. they were democrats and a successful congress. >> guest: i think the caller is reflecting frustration around

the country, especially among democrats, that the republicans are in the way. divided government is part of this country's culture and history. it should be expected. you have seen democrats get in the way of republican countries and now you are seeing republicans get in the way of democratic presidents. >> host: jim said we had a lot of roads repaid for. and ron says, $25 trillion in debt by 2024 what does the president's budget say about the deficit? >> guest: that is true the debt is at around $25 trillion in 2024 but that is irrelevant because the economy will grow

significantly between now and then. the absolute level of the debt is irrelevant. we have a larger debt than smaller countries. you would not compare to debt to a hundred years ago so that is irrelevant. the percentage of the debt relative to the size of the economy because that shows how much we are in debted. the president says 69% of the economy would be this. and that is a decline from today. the good news is we have smaller deficits and the economy is growing, but that is still bad when over the past 40-50 years it has been around 40%.

not good in historical terms, but in history. the big problem is when the baby boomers are going to retire, the debt is going to rise because of the drains on social security and medicare. the problem isn't over as a person on twitter points out. but the progress of the next ten years is considerable. >> host: that is the debt. what is the deficit number in this proposal and define the two. >> guest: deficits are how much the government spends minus how much they raise in revenue. and they are measured in percentage of economy activity. it is around 4% and coming down fast. i think it is estimated to end

around 3% and in the 2's next year so that is a big decline from 2010 where it was 10%. so that is progress. as long as the economy is growing faster than 2%, it will be a decline. every year you spend more than you have, and borrow money and that adds to the debts. so they would come down to a 1.6% gdp. the president will raise taxes on a trillion dollars mainly on wealthy people but some middle

class as well. it would probably work. but it is a huge controversy from the taxes. ... thank you for taking my call. independent because most of us americans have caught onto the big blame game. , andeach blame each other basically they are on the same team. they have different ways to go about it. my main problem is the epa. we are giving him close to $8 million, and it'll do nothing for us. they let the fracking industry go unregulated, they let solar management go unregulated. they are spraying our skies, trying to dim the sun to fight global warming. nobody knows about it. 02 global sky watch and you can find out all aut i i o knowre i i want to know where is the epa protecting us from this, his